john-users - Re: Speed of jtr on your machine?

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:52:36 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Speed of jtr on your machine?

On 2011-09-13 18:50, jfoug wrote:
>> Then I should look at that.  It 'should' give some signature that lists
>> it
>> was built using sse2 intrinsic functions.
>
> Here is what I see in a 32 bit intrinsic build (cygwin). Now, this is not
> jumbo-5, but I did not think anything changed about how md5_gen is built,
> since then.
>
> $ ../run/john -test -form=md5-gen
> Benchmarking:  md5_gen(0): md5($p)  (raw-md5)  [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... DONE
> Raw:    9653K c/s
>
>
> I will later check this on my pen drive linux-64 system, to see if there are
> problems showing up there, which do not appear on this 32 bit build.


It shows correctly when using md5_gen(0) but not when using thin raw-md5:

$ ./john -fo:"md5_gen(0)" -test
Benchmarking:  md5_gen(0): md5($p)  (raw-md5)  [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... DONE
Raw:	13832K c/s real, 13832K c/s virtual

$ ./john --format=raw-md5 --test
Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [gen]... Using raw-md5 mode, by linking to 
md5_gen(0) functions DONE
Raw:	13858K c/s real, 13858K c/s virtual

This is simply because the format (rawMD5go_fmt_plug.c) says so:
#define ALGORITHM_NAME			"gen"

It would be better if md5_gen replaced that. Perhaps it should when a 
thin format sets ALGORITHM_NAME to a null string?


Back to topic, Bugtrace's performance figures are very low for some 
reason or the other. What's the output from -test -fo:"md5_gen(0)"?

magnum